The Over de Linden family in Den Helder has an old manuscript, of which script, language and content are unknown. It was passed on from generation to generation, with the advice to keep it with care, as a family-treasure. The owner thought it was written in Old-Frisian, and that it might contain information about ancient ancestors.

When Dr. Eelco Verwijs, archivist-biblothecarian of Fryslân, heard about this, he informed the government. He was instructed to examine it. On 17 December 1867 he reported his first conclusions. The owner has given him permission to transcribe and translate the manuscript.

Thanks to the persevering zeal and care of Dr. Jan Ottema, the content was understood and translated. In detail he reported the results of his accurate examination in a meeting of the Frisian Society on 10 February 1871. This report was printed and distributed, and lead to a great common interest in this curious piece.

In his opinion, the doubts that had risen about the authenticity of the manuscript had no grounds. He saw it as a most important source of old-Frisian history, with completely new information. His conclusion: "We can assume that this manuscript, of which the oldest part was composed ca. 600 BC, contains the oldest product (besides Homer and Hesiod) of European literature. It describes an ancient culture, thus far unknown, with a development, civilization, industry, navigation, trade, literature and sublime religious values. In our imagination, our history did not reach beyond the arrival of Friso (ca. 300 BC), the supposed Frisian founding father. Here however we discover a history beyond 2000 BC, older than that of Greece and as old as that of Israel."

The manuscript is a copy from 1256, made by Hidde Oera Linda. In all debates about its authenticity and value, it was impossible to have a solid judgement, until it was published in 1872. [...]

Publication lead to heavy debates about authenticity of the manuscript. Dr. Ottema published an explanation in 1873, titled 'Historical Notes and Clarifications to the Oera Linda book', and defended it a year later in 'The Royal Academy and the Oera Linda book'. Dr. A.T. Reitsma from Groningen studied it and presented the result of his critical research in three meetings of the Frisian Society. He concluded that the manuscript is probably real, and of high historic value. In the last meeting the skeptics also gave their opinion. The manuscript itself was also displayed at that occasion, so anyone could judge if it could be a 13th century copy.

The most detailed research report so far was published in 1874, titled 'In response to the Oera Linda Book'. It is obvious that the author (prof. A.J. Vitringa) is very erudite and unprejudiced. His answer to the thought that the book would be a forgery, made after 1853, when the stilt-houses in lake Zürich were discoverd, is: "Who would be the forgerer? Not just anyone would be capable of such a thing. For that an accurate knowledge is needed of the oldest Frisian language, of which a very limited vocabulary from only a few sources is available. Besides, one should have known how that language would have changed through the ages. The fact is, there is a clear difference between the language of the oldest and the youngest texts of the manuscript. The forgerer would have needed a rare historic and geographic knowledge. Years of study would have been an inexorable condition and writing the odd letterscript would have been a tough job. What would all that effort have been good for? Honour? ... Forgerers have a good reason to keep their name a secret. - Money? ... Beforehand it was hardly expectable that any profit could be made with publication. - The pleasure of fooling some scholars? ... Would an utterly erudite and talented man, as the maker must have been, offer so much time and effort for such questionable delight? All that is inconceivable."

"What we have here is an odd dilemma: Either we are being fooled by a fabrication, made by a highly devoted, mad genius, or much of our ancient history will be seen from a different viewpoint, which will make a revolution in that field inevitable."

"You might think it was made by a bored friar? This cannot be the case either. The OLB describes ethics and a concept of God, that are unsurpassably true and pure, anti-monkish and anti-theologic. Someone who was raised under the influence of Katholic or even Protestant dogma's, could impossibly have expressed these true liberal and totally unbenefited feelings."

And yet this scholar concluded: "Although nothing excludes authenticity, and we discovered nothing that convinces of a forgery, still there is something suspicious about the parts that deal with Greek-Roman antiquity. We have no doubts about the honesty and frankness of the gentlemen Over de Linden and dr. Ottema. We are convinced that, if it would be a forgery, they have not participated in making it. We have doubts, but they are not strong enough to make us definitely reject the OLB."

We can anyway call this book remarkable. Some see the OLB as an idolization of the Frisian past. The book will remain subject of meticulous research, as long as it is hard to determine what part of old history is myth, saga, or embellished tradition. Yet anyone who has read the book will have to admit, that parts of the content are valuable. Therefore we fully agree with the following statement of the scholar from Deventer: "Although I have fallen in love with the book, I confidently look forward to the results of a scientific examination. Because, even if it would be convincingly refuted on historic grounds, it would still keep its great ethical value as an allegory, as fiction."

Fifty-first report of the proceedings of the Frisian Society of History, Archaeology and Linguistics in Leeuwarden,
over the year 1878-1879, given in the meeting of 18 September 1879.

[...]

C. Executive committee

In the general meeting of 12 September 1878, mr. W. Eekhoff's resignation as treasurer was accepted. He was replaced by mr. J.G. van Blom, while both periodically resigning board members dr. J.G. Ottema and mr. F.J.J. van Eijsinga were re-elected in their function.

Unfortunately, mr. Ottema could not hold this renewed position for long. Since 1832 he had been member of the Society, member of the board since 1843, initially as secretary, later since 1858 as general member. He died last March 19. The long-lasting membership offered him many opportunities to be useful to the Society and mr. Ottema did not fail to do so. He always was and remained a very diligent member of the board, who was hardly ever absent at the weekly meetings, while not only the various issues of "the free Frisian" but also separate publications of the Society (especially the 5 books 'Chonyken van Worp Tyaerda van Rinsumageest') are incontestable witnesses of his high efficacy. May his memory stimulate us to continue the path chosen by him.

From December 1870 till his death, that is more than 8 years, dr. Ottema has spent researching, translating, publishing and defending the OLB.

To him the book was sacred.

While the 1875 publication 'Friesche Oudheden' from the Frisian Society, was still very positive about the OLB (see translation in 11 parts that I posted in the last few days), it is emphatically not even mentioned in Ottema's obituary, only four years later.

Note that the full name of the Society is: Frisian Society of History, Archaeology and Linguistics.

By leaving the OLB out of his obituary, they not only proved their disrespect to Ottema who had been a member for 47 years, but to history in general.

12 January 2012

With my provisional, experimental translations, I aim at staying as close to the original words as possible, rather than creating a smooth, modern, easily readable text. I like to invite and seduce the reader, to try and read straight from the original manuscript, because in any translation, some of the poetic beauty and ambiguity will get lost.

For a translation in better English, see Sandbach (1876) or the second edition of Survivors of the Great Tsunami (2011) by Alewyn Raubenheimer.

But the Dénemarkers didn’t have ears for anything.
They wouldn’t understand that their morals could perish.
Therefore they paid no attention to her.
At long last they brought away their own weapons and victuals.

Now they had to sell the jewels.
But while the sailors were brought away with them, frost came and laid a plank over the sea and the straits.
When frost had the bridge ready, vigilance stepped over it to leave the land and treachery climbed up the seat.

(Jensma (2006) has the same translation as Ottema.)
But how do we know that "STÉL" had the same meaning as our "steel"?

### Posted 15 December 2011 - 03:25 PM
Abramelin, on 12 December 2011 - 10:57 AM, said:And wherever you look, "vampires" in the meaning of "blood-sucking undead people" appears to be a rather recent invention.

From the context in the OLB it's clear that the word is about something "blood-sucking", but not that it is about "undead people".

That the word originally will have meant bloodsucking worm (pyr), just makes more sense than that it suddenly was invented by someone who put some random letters together.

Whether it was made out of VAM + PYR or out of VAMP + YR, when we don't even know what the root-words mean, we cannot know how old the word really is.

### Posted 15 December 2011 - 03:33 PM
Abramelin, on 15 December 2011 - 01:40 PM, said:The word "VAMPYRA" (or similar spellings) doesn't show up with the meaning of 'bloodsucking undead/ghoul' anywhere before the 18th century.

Once more, the OLB doesn't suggest "undead/ghoul", only bloodsucking.

QuoteLet me try to give a more modern example.
Nowadays you hear someone say (and also here in the Netherlands) "Cool !!" when they like something very much or when they think something is really great and so on.
The original meaning of the word "cool" was something like "somewhat cold", or "not warm".

Your example doesn't work, because we don't know a more original meaning of Vampire, other than a bloodsucking creature (bat or undead).

I agree that it was older, but why do you think it was not connected with bloodsucking?

Abramelin, on 15 December 2011 - 04:02 PM, said:Because whatever we all found about the origin of the word had nothing to do with bloodsucking.

I must have missed that. Can you repeat or link to that?

### Posted 15 December 2011 - 04:33 PM
Abramelin, on 15 December 2011 - 04:16 PM, said:"fon t-anfang" would in Dutch be "van de aanvang", or as we could also write it: "van d'aanvang".
I don't think this has anything to do with some goddess.

Why do you add "fon"? It's just "TANFANG"; the beginning.
That Tanfana would be a goddess is only a 19th century assumption.

### Posted 15 December 2011 - 04:46 PM
Abramelin, on 15 December 2011 - 04:32 PM, said:Anyway, the oldest form (from Old Church Slavonic) is OPIRI.

That is your interpretation, but the text does not say so.
It also doesn't say or suggest that "the word had nothing to do with bloodsucking", as you claimed.

### Posted 15 December 2011 - 04:57 PM
Abramelin, on 15 December 2011 - 04:42 PM, said:Looks like a goddess to me, well, read the Wiki page or read Tacitus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanfana
And I added FON because I wanted to show the two words T-ANFANG in their context.

### Posted 15 December 2011 - 05:06 PM
Abramelin, on 15 December 2011 - 04:50 PM, said:In whatever source I read the etymology, it most always ends with 'witch' as the original meaning.

I only see the one you quoted: 'said by Slavic linguist Franc Miklošič to be ultimtely from Kazan Tatar ubyr "witch,"';
it's a theory by one single linguist, without any source for that quote.

QuoteI said: "Anyway, the oldest form (from Old Church Slavonic) is OPIRI."
1734, from Fr. vampire or Ger. Vampir (1732, in an account of Hungarian vampires), from Hung. vampir, from O.C.S. opiri (cf. Serb. vampir, Bulg. vapir, Ukrainian uper), said by Slavic linguist Franc Miklošič to be ultimtely from Kazan Tatar ubyr "witch,"

Didn't you notice that to the Hung. and O.C.S. version no year is added?
An example of how you read what you want to read.

### Posted 15 December 2011 - 05:22 PM
Abramelin, on 15 December 2011 - 05:16 PM, said:No way. The WR in WR.ALDA is not an article like the T in T_ANFANG: "The Beginning (De Aanvang/ D'AANVANG)

You said "two words". I said "yes, just like...". But what is your point?

### Posted 15 December 2011 - 05:30 PM
On page 45 you see that they placed 6 letters around the JOL;

W R A L D A
T A N F A Ng (NG was one letter)
T B I J I N

Apparently and understandably, "THE beginning" (T.ANFANG or Tanfang or Tanfana?) was something sacred, something mysterious.
Like I said, a perfect theme for a temple.
Anyway, I'm not the first to make this link. I think Jensma wrote about it too.

### Posted 16 December 2011 - 12:44 PM
Abramelin, on 10 December 2011 - 12:22 AM, said:Come on, show a screenshot of that page. You do know how to do it.

No, I dont't, thought I need special software for that.Can you explain me how to make screenshots (or download software for that)?

### Posted 16 December 2011 - 01:15 PM
Abramelin, on 16 December 2011 - 12:53 PM, said:The first thing to do is of course open a webpage, and then press [PrintScreen] or whatever it is called on your keyboard.

Great! Thanks a lot.

### Posted 16 December 2011 - 03:01 PM
Otharus, on 10 December 2011 - 12:07 AM, said:In this book, on page 2-3 of "Van Vroonen" (or 273-274 of 755 in the PDF), a fragment about "Attelantida" (Atlantis in a spelling that does not yet exist on the web, as far I could find with Google).

- A word for king in OLB is FORST (Dutch: vorst, German: Fürst), it means "most in front" or "first" (Dutch: voorst)
- The Dutch word "vooraanstaand" means "prominent", literally "standing-in-front".
- One of the most important cities of Westfriesland (until it was destroyed ca. 1300 AD) was Vroonen or Vronen.
- In OLB, a prominent burg in Westflyland was FORANA. All translaters assume that Vronen was ment.
- Verwijs suggested that Vronen is derived from FRAN (sacred, pious; Dutch: vroom).
- I think it makes sense that Franeker and France (and Verona?) are derived from the same word.

=> Did FORANA change into FRANA?

Was "vroom" originally "vooraan"?

### Posted 16 December 2011 - 06:30 PM
Abramelin, on 16 December 2011 - 06:15 PM, said:However, Vronen, according the oldest known reference from 1083, was called "Vranla".

Vranla = Vroon-loo; Vroner bos (forest of Vronen)

### Posted 17 December 2011 - 06:58 PM
According to "Frisia" by Hamconius (1609), the original Frisian coat of arms had water-lily leaves ("pompebladen") in it.

The Frisian flag, is the official flag of the Dutch province of Friesland. It consists of four blue and three white diagonal stripes; in the white stripes are a total of seven red pompeblêden, stylised heart-shaped leaves of yellow water-lily.

The seven red pompeblêden are a reference to the Frisian "sea countries" in the Middle Ages: independent regions along the coast from Alkmaar to the Weser who were allied against the Vikings. There were never precisely seven distinct rulers, but the number seven probably has the connotation "many."

Since the 11th century a coat of arms with pompeblêdden is known. Evidence for this lies within verses of the Gudrunlied. Round 1200 Scandinavian coats of arms reveal many traces of water-lilies and hearts, found often in combination with images of lions.

15th century books on heraldry show that two armorial bearings were derived from the early ones: a coat of arms showing lions and seven pompeblêdden transformed into little blocks, the other being the arms with the seven now known lilies on stripes.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The following fragment of Oera Linda Book could explain why 'pomp'-leaves had a very important meaning to the old Frisians:

Improved English translation (as Sandbach had too many errors):Sons and daughters of Frya,
you know well that we in last times have suffered much loss and misery
because the sailors no longer come to buy our writing-felt [...]
On the other side of the Scheldt, where they almost have the trade of all seas,
there they nowadays make writing-felt of water-lily leaves.
With that they save linen and no longer need us (lit.: can they miss us).
Because the making of writing-felt has always been our greatest trade,
the mother willed that one should teach us

So first "SKRIF-FILT" was used, made of "LINNENT", later paper made of "POMPA-BLÉDAR".
In the OLB, a word for 'paper' is used only once, as "PAMPÍER" [letter Hidde (1256 AD) line 11]:

If the OLB story is right it would explain two things:
1) why the Frisian flag is made up of 'pomp'-leaves
2) why the most common old-Frisian spelling of paper was "pompier"

If the OLB was created in the 19th century, its author(s) must have been an etymology fanatic. The etymology of "pompier" seems obvious, yet nothing is said about it in the OLB, and the only time the word for paper is used, it is spelled as "pampíer", while "pompier" would be more pure.

A brown shield is mentioned once in the OLB [p.086/21], but it doesn't say what the meaning was.

### Posted 17 December 2011 - 10:02 PM
Abramelin, on 17 December 2011 - 08:07 PM, said:Otharus, you are suggesting that, because the Fryans/Frisians used these water-lily leaves to make paper, they mixed or confused two words: paper & pomp(eblêden)?

No, I think the original word was POMPIER, named after the leaves.

And I think radical; the papyrus plant might be named after the use they made of it; to make writing-'pompier', a word that by then had been bastardised into "papier".

The modern Frisian dictionary has "papier", because they assumed what Knul has just posted, that the "m" was a bastardisation.

I don't think so.
We still have to find out why the leaves were so important to become the symbol of the Frisian identity, if not the ancient paper production that will have given them a great trading position (as the Kàlta-Minerva tale explains).

QuoteBtw: do you have any idea what these "waak-sterren" or OLB "wak-stara" (watchstars) really are??

I think they just believed that the spirit of someone great would go to 'heaven', to live on a 'star' (in Freya's case Venus) and watch over us (at night), something like a guardian angel. All the stars in the sky would represent the spirits of various ancestors.

### Posted 17 December 2011 - 10:38 PM
Abramelin, on 17 December 2011 - 10:19 PM, said:The -M- was a bastardisation?
What about the -L- ?

Yes, both letters may have been lost from the original "plomp".

PLOMP => POMP => PAMP => PAP

QuoteBut then what was the 'watchstar' of Finda?
And have you any idea why Lyda didn't ascend to some watchstar?

While Frya may really have been the 'Mother' (queen) before the 'big flood', the characters Finda and Lyda may have been made up for the creation myth, just to explain the different main (known) races.

I don't think the Fryans will have bothered about the wakestars of Finda and Lyda.

### Posted 18 December 2011 - 10:11 AM
Knul, on 18 December 2011 - 03:00 AM, said:Lek en brek is a standard modern Frisian expression, meaning shortage of anything. Expression: Der is gjin minske sunder lek of brek - there is no one without shortcomings.

Good to know that the expression is still in use, but what I said is that a more literal translation would be "leak and break".

I like my translations as literal as possible and would therefore choose: "leak/lack & break" or in Dutch "lek & gebrek/breuk". Beautiful metaphor.

### Posted 18 December 2011 - 10:42 AM
The Puzzler, on 18 December 2011 - 04:21 AM, said:Here's a word that retains the pamp - that is 'pamphlet' - a piece of paper. ...
Pampier in French seems to gel with pamplet here - the pamp is always there - but does it come from the term for pumpkin? or as the word pompe bledar? Which means what literally? Bleeding heart or water lily leaf?

Yes a relation between "pamphlet" and the Oldfrisian word for paper, "pampier" would make sense.
(I know traditional etymology suggests something else.)

In the OLB the new 'writing-felt' (paper) was made of POMPA-BLÉDAR, in Dutch pompebladen; waterlily-leaves.

Pumpkin-leaves sounds similar, and it is possible that the word pumpkin (dutch Pompoen) is derived from oldfrisian POMP, but it is a different plant, and therefore not a good translation. I think Sandbach was simply mistaken.

The association with the heart-shape (or something else) will have helped to make the leaf a national symbol.

Friese vlag, 1971 by Lode Pemmelaar (1942-1997)

### Posted 18 December 2011 - 11:56 AM
Knul, on 18 December 2011 - 10:50 AM, said:lek is not leak in the expression lek and brek, but English lack, brek is not breuk but gebrek.

I think it's pretty obvious that LEK, LEAK and LACK are etymologically related, as well as BREK, GEBREK, BREAK and BREUK. But I will leave the conclusion to every individual reader.

Abramelin, on 18 December 2011 - 02:57 PM, said:"with a small house upon it out of which they look at the stars"

The original fragment [106/16]:

EN LÍTH HUSKE THÉR VPPA. HWÁNA MAN THA STÀRA BISJATH

### Posted 18 December 2011 - 03:43 PM
Abramelin, on 18 December 2011 - 03:19 PM, said:I have also wondered why those (national) yellow flowers changed into red and looked like hearts.
Are there still old flags/emblems around with these flowers still being yellow?

### Posted 20 December 2011 - 12:28 PM
Knul, on 19 December 2011 - 06:20 PM, said:A good indication, that the OLB stems from the 19th century is the word stât,-a = state,-s, which is not Oldfrisian.

It is. Richthofen's Oldfrisian dictionary (1840):

### Posted 20 December 2011 - 03:32 PM
I know these fragments. State or estate is a plausible (and close to orig.) translation. But how would that prove that the text is new?
Imagine, a 'new' oldfrisian text is discovered and proven to be authentic.
It is a few hundred pages long, and older than any known oldfrisian text.
Would it be intelligent to expect and demand that it only has words in it that are already known from the texts we have and in the exact same meaning that we know them?
Wouldn't it be very possible that we would discover that some words and expressions are actually older than we thought?

I suspect that the oldfrisian VV (double 'ooh', as in 'pooh') became the greek O-mega (big 'o').

### Posted 20 December 2011 - 04:06 PM
Abramelin, on 20 December 2011 - 03:47 PM, said:The problem with 'modern' words showing up in a manuscript that is supposed to be millennia old, is that in much more recent manuscripts these words are never used in that meaning.
Like: 3000 years ago XXX meant 1234, then 2000 years later XXX meant 4567, and then again just a few centuries ago it suddenly meant 1234 again.
That is not very likely to happen.

I don't think it's very unlikely to happen.
Just imagine a trend-setter who uses a word in a very old or oldfashioned meaning, and others take over.
The same word can have slightly different meanings in different regions.
We see that often with European languages, but even in various dialects.

"It was written in the Frisian language; I don't know a distinction between Oldfrisian and Land- or Farmers-Frisian. I only know another and newer spelling of that language, because the pronounciation of Frisian is virtually the same as some ages ago, which was demonstrated by the worldfamous linguist the Danish prof. R. Rask in his Frisian grammar [...]Concerning the spelling in this text, this in my opinion is much more in accordance with the older and very regular, and much better and regular than of those, who nowadays write that language; it would be desirable, that one would adapt that spelling, so there would be more unity of spelling, and the origin of the language would, better than now, be conserved. People nowadays write it with Dutch sounds, and in contemporary Dutch writing style. But this is no surprise. None of the later writers in that language, including Gijsbert Japiks and the Halbertsma brothers, have taken the spelling of the old manuscripts into account. Only T.R. Dijkstra and H.S. Sytstra tried to follow the tracks of the old and kept seeing the value of that spelling."
(improvised translation by me)

### Posted 21 December 2011 - 10:25 AM
Abramelin, on 20 December 2011 - 10:43 PM, said:But how is a Hettema able to know who pronounced Old Frisian best?

Yes, I would be skeptical about that part too.
But the rest is relevant, and he could know what he was talking about.
He made an Oldfrisian dictionary and studied the grammar...

"It was written in the Frisian language; I don't know a distinction between Oldfrisian and Land- or Farmers-Frisian. [...]Concerning the spelling in this text, this in my opinion is much more in accordance with the older and very regular, and much better and regular than of those, who nowadays write that language; it would be desirable, that one would adapt that spelling, so there would be more unity of spelling, and the origin of the language would, better than now, be conserved. People nowadays write it with Dutch sounds, and in contemporary Dutch writing style. But this is no surprise. None of the later writers in that language, including Gijsbert Japiks and the Halbertsma brothers, have taken the spelling of the old manuscripts into account."

### Posted 21 December 2011 - 10:49 AM
Leendert Floris Over de Linden (1837-1919) was a son of Cornelis (1811-1874).

In 1877 he published his answer to Vinckers with the title "Beweerd maar niet Bewezen" (claimed but not proven).

Here's a translation of what he wrote about his father's relationship with bookbinder Stadermann, one of the 'suspects' in some of the hoax-theories.

"Concerning the frienship between my father and mister Stadermann, I record that this was not more than relation of friendly neighbors, at most during one year, in 1847. After that my father moved house and the relation ended entirely."

### Posted 21 December 2011 - 11:28 AM
Abramelin, on 08 October 2011 - 09:07 PM, said:... it was this same Ottema who had noticed that the numerals as introduced by the OLB Godfreyath the Witking were very similar to what he saw in a Dutch library (The Royal Library/"De Koninklijke Bibliotheek" in The Hague), ie. on a copy of a plate from the Alhambra (Granada).

L.F. Over de Linden ("Beweerd maar niet bewezen", 1877) also refers to this:

"The most important peculiarity, concerning the origin of our numbers - called 'Arabic', but never used by the Arabs - the peculiarity that these numbers, in the 'Yul' as in the manuscript, appear as ornamentfigures in the decorations of the Alhambra, the greatest memorial of Morish architecture in Spain..."

### Posted by Alewyn Raubenheimer 23 December 2011 - 04:52 PM
Abramelin, on 23 December 2011 - 01:08 PM, said:The date of 2194 BCE in the Oera Linda Book, what was it based on?
-1- Astrology (some special and rare conjunction)?
-2- Astronomy (an actual/probable impact of a comet - Edmund Halley/William Whiston/Alewyn)
-3- Biblical chronology (Friesche Volksalmanak)?
-4- A combination of 1&2 or 1&3 or 2&3 ?
I think we have covered every possibility by now, but for option -3- I did find something new:

You left out one possibility:

-5- Direct observation, i.e. the OLB is based on fact.

Biblical chronology and, by implication, the Friesche Volksalmanak which is based thereon is unlikely. Why would they have used an inferred or calculated Biblical date (i.e. the Bible was their prime, and only source) and not have used the Biblical description of the flood. The OLB and Biblical descriptions of the flood are completely different from one another.

[083/22]VNDERA TÍDUM THAT ALDLAND SVNKEN IS.
STAND THJU FORMA SPÉKE FON THET JOL AN TOP
[O+S p.115]
In de tijden, dat Atland verzonken is,
stond de eerste spaak van het Juul in topAt the time of the submersion of Atland,
the first spoke of the Juul stood at the top

### Posted 27 December 2011 - 08:24 AM
Van Gorp, on 27 December 2011 - 12:41 AM, said:About Joel, Jol, Youlios:
When this feast was about the coming together of all the worlds at the end of the cycle (ultima Thule, thule-tieme Tsjoël -> het doel as is meant in Dutch for the ultimate aim),
When this point is reached, it brings "t ultiem geluk", really "Jolich" see 'jolig' in Flemish, mijn jolijke ik.
They Joelde in 2 different meanings:
1) The death 'Tsjoolde' (see the flemish verb: 'tjoln', wandering around I think they call it in English) among the living at Jol
2) The living 'Joelde' from Joy
When Jolius is radiant as the youth, it has to do with the birth of the sun and the reflection of the light (that means that we are delighted).
That's why we call jewels as we call them (originally JUweeL, the wheel of Jol is fulfilled and brings the light -> makes the world radiant and receptive for the ultimate Joy)

Thank you for joining indeed VG, you are very welcome.
This discussion needs someone who knows about Flemish and etymology, even - or I would say specially - if it's 'alternative', unofficial etymology!

I would not be surprised is the Dutch "Lol" (fun, joy) would be related too.
(I know that in Westfriesland "Jol" is also a family name, and of course there is "Van Jole")
I'm sure we can make this list much longer, which is only normal, considering the importance and symbolic meaning of the JOL.

### Posted by Alewyn Raubenheimer 27 December 2011 - 08:41 AM
Van Gorp, on 26 December 2011 - 05:00 PM, said:Alewyn, I find your research results very interresting & plausible.
I have not read the full thread, so excuse me if the subject was allready covered before.

Do you have any thoughts/links in your book/research about the linguistic theories set forth by scientists as Becanus, Schrieck and consorts?
Is there no similar discussion going on in your area (and fora I see ;-) as with the Becanus/Scopius views against the Lipsius/Scalliger alikes?

In short: the classical view of "Latin <- Greek <- Egypt is the way of our civilisation/language", does not stand anymore ... seems to be the bottomline.
If you look it linguistic, or mythological. Even more so if there truly were some 'errors' in the dark age timeline.
But as I understood from readers of OLB, this story is mainly told as a 'Fries' story.

Hi Van Gorp,

My apologies for only responding now but I do not look at this forum every day.

I am afraid you have to address linguistic questions to people like Puzzler, Abramelin and Otharus. They are far more knowledgeable on the subject than I am.

The investigations into the OLB over the last 140 years by others mainly concentrated on the language it was written in. The conclusions reached were not conclusive, in my opinion, and I decided to approach the OLB from a somewhat different angle. I wanted to see whether we have any other historical and scientific evidence that can bear out the (preposterous) claims made in the book – especially those facts that were not known in the 19th century when the book first surfaced. From that angle I believe that I have proven beyond reasonable doubt that the OLB is not a 19th century hoax. The historical picture that emerged is very fascinating and shows that our entrenched perceptions of early antiquity are simply wrong.

The others here have discovered a lot of supporting evidence to my stance but, if I was to include it all in my book, I would have to update it at least once a month, e.g. the very interesting posts by Abramelin recently regarding Halley and Stonehenge. (Lol, there I go sucking up again). That would make my book somewhat intimidating and unappealing to the average reader.

The debate and further investigations here is exactly what I had hoped for. Thus far the evidence against the hoax theory has been mounting steadily whereas the arguments in favour of the hoax theory are whittling away.

I may just add that the OLB does not describe a bolide impact or impacts with earth; that is my interpretation from the description before and after “the bad times” in the book as well as from other sources. It is interesting, though, that others have also reached the same conclusion long before me, e.g. Halley, Velikovsky, Plato, etc. The scientific community (in certain circles) is now also looking seriously at this. I have no doubt that they will soon find out that earth is suffering much more frequently from disastrous impacts than was thought until now (that is, rather every few hundred or thousand years rather than every few million years).

Who knows, perhaps someone here will even write a sequel to my book, LOL.

### Posted 27 December 2011 - 11:16 AM
Knul, on 27 December 2011 - 10:04 AM, said:Joelen has a different etymology from joel-yule.

In OLB it is spelled with "JOL-" (JOLDON, JOLANDE).
The old Dutch spelling is "jolen".
If there would be an English version, it would be "to yool"?

It's obvious the words are related, just like jolig/ jolich/ jolly.

'Official' etymology is founded mostly on wild guesses.

When OLB is accepted to not be a hoax (as I am sure will happen), etymology as we know it will make a HUGE leap forward.

### Posted 27 December 2011 - 11:26 AM
Alewyn, on 27 December 2011 - 08:41 AM, said:The investigations into the OLB over the last 140 years by others mainly concentrated on the language it was written in.

If this was true, the mystery would have been solved a long time ago.

Since the aggressive nonsense published by Vinckers in the 1870s, no scholar of reputation has dared to burn fingers on the subject, because even considering that the manuscript might possibly be authentic was/is taboo and will lead to ridicule and excommunication from the 'scientific' community.

Jensma (in 2004) focused on who might have been behind the assumed conspiracy and what might have been their motives.

### Posted 27 December 2011 - 11:51 AM
The Puzzler, on 27 December 2011 - 11:47 AM, said:But maybe as in all things OLB there is 2 different words really

That would be JOL-LIK; Jol-like

### Posted 27 December 2011 - 04:49 PM
The Puzzler, on 27 December 2011 - 01:16 PM, said:The only Jol word in the Frisian dictionary takes you to jahwelik...

Which demonstrates that the (online) Frisian dictionaries do not give a complete account of the Oldfrisian language. Perhaps from the words that occur in the known written medieval sources, but the spoken language must have contained an equivalent for "yule", as all (or most) north-European languages seemed to have known this word.

I would not be surprised if the word (and related words) were taboo here in the (Christian) Middle Ages, as all sacred symbols of the old culture were fanatically destroyed.

Translated:"The earliest mention of the word Jul is found in the Gothic Calendarfragment Codex Ambrosianus A from the sixth or seventh century AD." etc.

### Posted 28 December 2011 - 10:50 PM
Knul, on 28 December 2011 - 06:54 PM, said:Official etymology is based on scientific studies of many generations of scientists not on pseudo-etymology of the type of jol-joldon, jol-Jolande, jol- jolly and jol-jollick, presented by Otharus. This non-scientific approach is certainly not a way to proof the authenticity of the OLB. It's just too silly for words.

had fallen under the power of Magy
as if his power was to become supreme

Your English translation is not very good, but it is better than your Dutch one.
Isn't that weird?
WELDIG is not "gewelddadig" (violent), but mighty, powerful, influential.
If you want to stay close to the original, use "geweldig" (machtig).
You have not read COL's essay about the word WELD and how it relates to WRALDA?

### Posted 29 December 2011 - 08:30 PM
Abramelin, on 29 December 2011 - 07:36 PM, said:I have said that someone or some people have been cherry-picking from ancient Frisian, Greek and Roman legends.
But I am quite sure they left out the really mythical things, just to make their fabricated story sound sane and believable.

Many things that were considered utterly insane and unbelievable by most 19th century experts, are actually quite plausible for us nowadays...

### Posted 30 December 2011 - 12:52 PM
Abramelin, on 30 December 2011 - 11:19 AM, said:I just found out Overwijn really transliterated every underscore and point in the text too. ...
But what he also did (I removed it from the quote) is give a name like "âst. flyy.land" an extra -y- to stress the way it should be pronounced according to him: -yy- is pronounced as (English) -ee- (in Dutch it would be -ie- ).

Jensma (2006) and De Heer (2008) both made new transliterations (I have found minor mistakes in both).

Sample of full two pages Jensma:

1. photocopy of original manuscript
2. transliteration
3. three columns for different types of footnotes
4. Dutch 'translation' (not one I am happy with)

Sample of transliteration Jensma:

Sample of transliteration/ translation De Heer:

With footnotes on the bottom of every page.

### Posted 30 December 2011 - 03:16 PM
Abramelin, on 30 December 2011 - 01:53 PM, said:I think I prefer Jensma's transliteration because - judging from what you posted - he kept the lines at the original length including breaks, tildes and all. Also I think his use of the capital 'eth', or Ð is really handy.

Yes a consequent line-numbering is handy, but for my personal study I also like to separate sentences.
That letter is OK for print-version, but a normal keyboard doesn't have it; for an online version it would not be good (how to do a word search?).

Here's an experiment (this time not aimed at providing smooth translation, but for study of the language):

### Posted 30 December 2011 - 05:13 PM
Abramelin, on 30 December 2011 - 03:52 PM, said:I don't have a special keyboard at all: Ð.
I got it with [CAPS LOCK] and then [rightside - ALT] [D].

On the keyboard I'm working with now, that doesn't work, but there must be a way.

Psychologically, for people who are new to this, it might make the threshold higher when uncommon letters are used. Either way, I'm fine with it.

QuoteYour experiment looks ok, but I think maybe you could leave out the part bottom-left; it looks redundant.

Yeah, I just thought it might be easier for beginners (and dyslectics). I work with a file myself with the original text only, and I let every new sentence start on a new line, makes it easier to read and concentrate. For now it's a little effort. In a print-version I would probably not include both.

According to Hettema, "ethla" can both mean "edelen" (nobility) as ancestors.
But in OLB, the context seems to indicate that it (originally?) just means ancestors.
Nobility might be a later meaning.
I guess the word is related to "ath".

### Posted 30 December 2011 - 05:54 PM
Experiment part 2:

And part 3:

### Posted by Alewyn Raubenheimer 30 December 2011 - 07:16 PM
Whilst you are on the subject of the OLB's translation:

I have been wanting to share this little thought for some time now (Ever since Otharus pointed out that "Pompa Bleder" did not mean "Pumpkin Leafs" but rather "Water Lily Leafs")

The OLB describes the civil war that broke out between Minerva’s and Syrhed’s followers in ca. 1630 BC. One of the main reasons was the fact that Minerva’s followers started making paper from “pompa bledar” or water lily leafs (Nuphar lutea) instead of from flax, thereby destroying one of the main sources of income of Syrhed’s followers.

The results of the war were that the Fryan Federation broke up, the Celts came into being and the foundations of the later Greek Civilization were laid.

This little leaf, which appears on the Frisian flag today, radically changed world history.

I shall think about this every time I see the Frisian flag.

### Posted 31 December 2011 - 10:57 AM
Alewyn, on 31 December 2011 - 09:32 AM, said:Perhaps Otharus could tell us more about the symbolism of the flag.

More practically, red is much better recognizable from a distance on a flag or shield, than green.

The combination red-white-blue is still used in the flags of many nations, like:
Netherlands
United Kingdom
France
Norway
Iceland
United States

### Posted 31 December 2011 - 12:15 PM
Alewyn, on 31 December 2011 - 09:18 AM, said:Correct transliteration, imo, is the first step in translation, but I shall leave that to people more knowledgeable on the subject. ...
It may well be that a more accurate transliteration could alter the translation as well.

Alewyn, your translation of "FAM" into Matron, rather than priestess, maagd or virgin is an improvement.

I didn't read much yet, but I found one example of an edit from you that is actually the opposite of an improvement.

It is a fragment that was discussed several times in the forum, so first I will repeat (quotes edited):

DISCUSSION
Ottema must have thought of the latin word "ODIUM" (meaning hatred) when he translated OD.
Od/Odr is a nordic root word meaning spirit, but in mythology is also the name of Freya´s lover or husband.

Logically, "od" might also have meant penis, semen or DNA, because after "od" penetrated the three young women, they became pregnant... It was probably an ambiguous, poetic word.

In my opinion it makes a huge difference if a creation myth says that our oldest ancestors were born out of hatred, or out of something more natural and hopefully even loving.

Otharus, on 12 April 2011 - 05:54 PM, said:Apparently he [Cornelis Over de Linden] has helped Ottema solve several translating problems.

The following fragment of "De Gemaskerde God" (p.260 and footnotes) about this is interesting:

"A good example also is the correspondence about the translation of the word 'Od' (the most discussed word from the whole OLB in its literature)." [Here Jensma had placed a footnote, but this only reads: "cancelled"???]

"Ottema initially thought this would mean something like 'misfortune' or 'bad luck'. But Over de Linden knew exactly what the correct meaning of the word was:

The word OD is related to Oldsaxon "ôd" - fortune- or good luck-bringing force [gelukbrengende kracht]. The Dutch word for stork, 'ooievaar' might have been derived from this.

Ottema did not accept this correction, he changed his interpretation and derived the word from Latin 'Odi' = I hate."

I find it absurd that Ottema ignored Over de Linden's suggestion and chose for the Latin "od" (hate) rather than the old-Saxon "ôd" (fortune or life-force) in his translation of "OD" in the creation myth. (In old-Norse it appears to have meant 'spirit', which would also fit more into the context than 'hate'.)

I can think of two possible explanations.

First, that he might have had the preconceived idea that the creation myth should have an 'original sin' type of element in it; pregnancy means bad luck?!

Second, that he might have felt embarrassed with any association to fertility.

In the transliteration and translation of this fragment, two mistakes were made by Ottema, that were copied by Sandbach and not corrected by Alewyn Raubenheimer.

1) The point between DRAMA and WR.ALDA.S was moved and placed between WR.ALDA.S and OD.

2) The word OD was translated as "haat"/ "hatred", based on Latin "odium", rather than on the Old-Norse or Old-Saxon "od"/ "odr" that has a positive meaning (spirit, life-force, fortune, etc).

Translation Sandbach (1876):"As soon as they were full grown they took pleasure and delight in the visions of Wr-alda. Hatred found its way among them."

Edited translation Alewyn Raubenheimer (2011):"When she was full grown she took pleasure and delight in the visions of Wralda. Hatred entered them."

"Hja wêron rip" = they were ripe (plural), which also makes sense in the context of THREE mothers.

But what I really don't understand, is how anyone can make sense out of conception being caused by "hatred" entering a woman.

One may say, it's only a creation myth, but I repeat: it makes a huge difference if you believe that our ancestors believed life started out of hatred (or an angry god punishing our oldest ancestors by casting them out of paradise), or that you have a more positive and natural approach to the origin of life.

Yes, that makes much more sense! Thanks for that, Knul.
The 'head' of a penis (flagpole/ staff/ shaft) surely looks like a hood/ hat/ helmet.
But I would not completely rule out a connection with the Oldnorse/ Saxon "od".
The OLB language is full of ambiguities anyway.
Would the words "rod" and "hod" (and "mod"?) somehow be related to "od"?
Great rhyme-words...

So here's a new improvised English translation:Soon as they were ripe, they got fruits/ joy (dutch: vruchten/ vreugden) and nuts/ pleasure (dutch: noten/ geneugten) in their dreams. Wralda's rod (or spirit/ life-force) entered them, and now they gave birth to 12 suns and 12 daughters, each Joltime twins.
Thereof all people have come (descended).

That is not quite correct.
In modern Frisian it means "woman", but in the OLB the context indicates that it was more of an honorary title, something like "lady" (dutch "vrouwe", which would be related to "freya").

Hence, 'legends' are used by Greek and Roman suppressors to describe the history of the people they tried to dominate.
By learning 'our own' history through 'their' legends, things can get fussy some times.

The cultural/historical value of these legend-people seem to be more original than the Greek/Latin ones, and all relative to the ongoing transmigration of the Scytisch field people throughout Europe in the ages before and during the Greek/Roman domination of Europe.

Many Greek/Latin words are phonetically invented/written words of an Old Euro-Celtisch-Scytisch-Frysian-Belgae-... 'spraecke' (the language was spoken, not written).
And then we try to trace back the origin of words by their invented Greek/Latin counterpart?

Interesting views.

QuoteBelow an extract of an 17th essay on the original language-spraec spoken by Belgae Scyths (similar to OLB story)
[...]

Interesting read. Thanks for that.
What is your view on the origin of the words "Belgae" and "Scyths"?
Do you know the word of the Westflemish alternative historian/ artist Joël Vandemaele?
He suggested that Belgae are related to Pelasgians.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelasgians

"The name Pelasgians (Greek: Πελασγοί, Pelasgoí, singular Πελασγός, Pelasgós) was used by some ancient Greek writers to refer to populations that were either the ancestors of the Greeks or who preceded the Greeks in Greece, "a hold-all term for any ancient, primitive and presumably indigenous people in the Greek world."[1] In general, "Pelasgian" has come to mean more broadly all the indigenous inhabitants of the Aegean Sea region and their cultures before the advent of the Greek language."

### Posted 02 January 2012 - 03:34 PM
Knul, on 02 January 2012 - 02:54 PM, said:So you see, that the general term maiden, meid is used for a function in the household like melkmeid -milk maiden, kindermeisje - children's maiden, etc. and that the term has not been used for the head, chief of the household, which would be indicated as matrona = lady = vrouwe.See 3) in the last eigth lines. Knapa and famna belonged to the household as a remainal of the time of slavery.

But in OLB the word does not seem to have this meaning:
[061/28]NW WILLATH WI SKRIWA VR THA ORLOCH THÉRA BURCH.FÁMNA KÀLTA ÀND MIN.ERVANow we will describe the war of the ... Kàlta and Minerva.

My first impression is that many of Schrieck's etymologies make less sense than the ones given and suggested in OLB.
But that does by no means mean that all of it is nonsense.
It is interesting that both Scandinavia (Sweden) and the Low counties seem to have had a tradition of proving that their language was the one of before the Babylonian confusion of speech.

suche / zoek / soek / sök / søk / søg / seek/ sykje

F R Y A ~ S K É D N I S E

the early speech of our fore-fathers

"The pure Friesic and easy wording of the Oera Linda Book must be most welcome to students of English and Saxon, as a widening of the now too narrow ground of the early speech of our fore-fathers." Wm. Barnes. Macmillan's Magazine,April 1877, p. 465.

Video Studies

Cornelis Over de Linden (1811-1874) Den Helder

Eelco Verwijs (1830-1880)

first scholar who studied the manuscript and confirmed its authenticity (1867) - later he withdrew this conclusion, probably to save his career

Jan Ottema (1804-1879) Leeuwarden

first translator and publisher of the 'Oera Linda Bok' (1872 & 1876)

the oldest production of European literature

"We may thus accept that we possess in this manuscript, of which the first part was composed in the sixth century before our era, the oldest production, after Homer and Hesiod, of European literature. And here we find in our fatherland a very ancient people in possession of development, civilisation, industry, navigation, commerce, literature, and pure elevated ideas of religion, whose existence we had never even conjectured."Dr. J.G. Ottema, 1871 (translation Sandbach)